Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.

Rating

Categories

Tags

Our Review Summary

This news release from the Hass Avocado Board, an agriculture promotion group, summarizes findings from a retrospective analysis that involved combing through hundreds of studies on avocados to find 10 very small ones that addressed the fruit’s impact on cholesterol. When data from the studies were analyzed together the researchers found support for the assertion that eating 1 or 1.5 fresh avocados a day reduces total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides. In its description of the benefits and evidence the release omits needed quantification and limitations of the research.

Why This Matters

Cholesterol is one of many risk factors for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in the US. Dietary changes that improve the cholesterol profile may in turn lower the risk of heart disease. However, it is the overall dietary pattern in addition to other known risk factors (smoking, hypertension, obesity, family history, among others), that influence ultimate risk of cardiovascular disease. The addition of a single food to the diet is not expected to result in meaningful changes in overall risk.

Criteria

Not Satisfactory

Avocados are expensive and that should be acknowledged when advising consumers to add 1 or 1.5 daily to their diets. According to the Hass Avocado Board’s own website, the average retail price of a conventionally grown avocado is $.89, while an organic one is $1.52. A family of four could potentially spend $25 to $42 a week on avocados alone were they to adopt the release’s recommendation.

Statistically significant findings are not the same as clinically important findings, and the public needs to know how much cholesterol reduction was found in the study. It would also be useful to point out that cholesterol changes do not necessarily equate to reduced risk of actual heart attacks and strokes.

Not Satisfactory

It could have been noted that adding an avocado or two a day to one’s diet would also add to daily caloric intake. An average avocado has around 250 calories and 21 grams (about one-third of the recommended daily allowance) of fat. Additional caloric intake can result in weight gain and stored fat, which in turn impacts metabolic markers (such as increased insulin production and inflammatory markers) and cardiovascular risk.

Not Satisfactory

The release tells us that the meta-analysis looked at 10 studies that together comprised 229 volunteers, suggesting an average participation of 23 people per study. Those are very small studies.

According to the study, in its Discussion section, “Although the overall analysis effectively evaluated the use of avocados in improving lipid profiles, the subgroup analyses by health status or baseline diet are difficult to assess due to the small sample size in each subgroup.”

It bears noting that even a meta-analysis can reach the wrong conclusion if studies it includes themselves had design flaws.

The news release contradicts itself when first stating that benefits were seen after daily consumption of 1 to 1.5 avocados but then states elsewhere, “However, the optimal amount of avocado and frequency of use needs further evaluation along with the nutritional similarities and differences between other different MUFA sources.”

This suggests that the researchers really weren’t sure how much and how often avocados should be consumed to see benefit.

Satisfactory

Not Satisfactory

The release states that the research was “conducted at the University of the Pacific and independently funded.” The published study doesn’t tell us who funded the study either. Under “Financial disclosures” it states “The views expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Air Force or University of the Pacific.” That statement has nothing to do with financing the study.

Not Satisfactory

The beneficial cholesterol-lowering ingredient in avocados is monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) which can be found in other foods. The news release doesn’t mention these alternate food sources for MUFA but the study did. It states:

“Specific types of nuts are also a good source of MUFA. In a pooled analysis of 25 studies that looked at a variety of nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios, peanuts, and macadamias), a mean LDL-C reduction of 7.4% was evident.”

Not Applicable

Satisfactory

The release makes it clear that the study is an analysis of previous research and that it lends further support to the idea that avocados may be beneficial to one’s diet. It’s evident that the “news” here is the study, and that the idea that avocados lower cholesterol isn’t novel in and of itself.

Not Satisfactory

The release misinforms when it claims that meta-analysis studies such as the one described here are “considered the best evidence and an unbiased overview of the body of knowledge on a specific topic. ” In reality, a randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial involving an adequate sample of participants would likely provide better evidence and less chance of bias than a retrospective review of hand-selected previously published research.

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Current ye@r *

Leave this field empty

Our Comments Policy

We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.

News Release Reviews

Newsletter

Get caught up with this once-a-week email

We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share your e-mail address with any third parties.

Newsletter Signup

Sign up for HealthNewsReview.org weekly email digest

Thank you for joining the HealthNewsReview.org mailing list. It’s a good way for you to stay up-to-date on what we’ve published, even if you forget to come to our website every day or every week.-Gary Schwitzer, Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org

Email Address*

First Name*

Last Name

Please verify

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By submitting this form, you are granting: HealthNewsReview.org, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States, https://www.healthnewsreview.org permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Mailchimp. (See their Email Privacy Policy for details.)

Tags

Newsletter Signup

Get caught up with this once-a-week email

We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share your e-mail address with any third parties.

Newsletter Signup

Sign up for HealthNewsReview.org weekly email digest

Thank you for joining the HealthNewsReview.org mailing list. It’s a good way for you to stay up-to-date on what we’ve published, even if you forget to come to our website every day or every week.-Gary Schwitzer, Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org

Email Address*

First Name*

Last Name

Please verify

Name

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By submitting this form, you are granting: HealthNewsReview.org, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States, https://www.healthnewsreview.org permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Mailchimp. (See their Email Privacy Policy for details.)